Lets start a forum about disputes/fights over royal Jewels. For instance, if I was a princess and my brother the Crown Prince, I would be upset that my brothers wife gets my moms jewels and not me, same goes for a new Queen with the dowager etc.

I know there was a dispute with Queen Victoria and the house of Hanover regarding the Jewels belonging to the house of Hanover, ending with Queen Victoria giving back most of the Jewels, Please post pics

Actually, Queen Victoria ended up keeping most of the Hanoverian jewels she inherited from William IV. In 1857, she returned Queen Charlotte's diamond wedding crown, diamond stomacher and diamond necklace and cross to her German cousins in full settlement of the dispute.

The jewels in question were left to the Duke of Cumberland by his father, George II. The Duke then sold them to his nephew, George III, in 1761. George III gave them to Queen Charlotte as a wedding gift and she left them to the House of Hanover after her death in 1818.

Because of the Salic Law passed in the German principalities and kingdoms, Victoria could not succeed to the throne of Hanover as a woman. Her uncle, Ernst-Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, demanded half of William IV's jewel collection, as the new King of Hanover and a son of Queen Charlotte. Victoria probably owed him the jewels, but refused to cooperate for many years.

For instance, if I was a princess and my brother the Crown Prince, I would be upset that my brothers wife gets my moms jewels and not me, same goes for a new Queen with the dowager etc.

It certainly is understandable to feel that way, but royal life is governed by tradition. Most royal houses do not have a tremendous collection of jewels and that is why the tradition is the eldest son (or daughter if she will succeed) inherits all of the family's jewels (and usually most of the money and property as well).

This ensures these assets remain in the family with each successive sovereign or head of the house. Most of the British peers do the same.

The house of Orleans had several court cases in the late 90-ties when the old count of Paris sold the two sapphire tiara's (to finance his mistress?). I believe some of his children went to court to prevent this.

I can recall reading an article several eyars ago, in which an Indian prince (or his escendants) was planning on suing Queen Elizabeth II for some of the British Crown Jewels, basically saying that they had been forcibly removed from India.

Unfortunately as it was such a long time ago ( at least 3 or 4) years I cannot remember any of the details. I don't know if ay other members would be able to assist.

I can recall reading an article several eyars ago, in which an Indian prince (or his escendants) was planning on suing Queen Elizabeth II for some of the British Crown Jewels, basically saying that they had been forcibly removed from India.

Unfortunately as it was such a long time ago ( at least 3 or 4) years I cannot remember any of the details. I don't know if ay other members would be able to assist.

I have no idea! To be honest I'm not sure if the case ever even came to court. I imagien the British would turn around and say that the jewels were theirs as they ruled India, therefore they could take them out of the country if they so wished.

There was an argument between the Swedish king and his uncle Prince Sigvard regarding a ruby tiara that Sigvard felt belonged to him.

This might be the reason why the tiara is not in use, as far as I have been able to see Silvia has only worn it once, at Joaciam & Alexandras wedding, wich I think is a shame beacuse it´s such a lovely piece...

Grand Duchesses Xenia and Olga with their Mother's Jewels for sale. . .

In Leslie Field's book, She asserted that The Grand Duchesses Xenia and Olga claimed they never got their full share of the proceeds from the sale of their mother's jewels after her death in 1928. Ms. Field also stated that the response to this has been that King George V took the money and put them into bank funds for his two cousins for what they were entitled to.

It certainly is understandable to feel that way, but royal life is governed by tradition. Most royal houses do not have a tremendous collection of jewels and that is why the tradition is the eldest son (or daughter if she will succeed) inherits all of the family's jewels (and usually most of the money and property as well).

This ensures these assets remain in the family with each successive sovereign or head of the house. Most of the British peers do the same.

I remember reading in an article about Princess Marina of Kent's jewelry that she left it to her sons according to Greek tradition because the sons have wives to support, but her daughter has a husband to support her. Still, doesn't seem fair though.

One of course remeber that these are not just people in an ordinary situation. If the normal rules of inheritance were to apply soon the throne would probably loose a substantial part of the jewels to be placed at the use of the reigning monarch as head of state. Most countries except possibly czarist Russia or some of the Indian princelinigs were never in a postition to buy say a half dozen or so tiaras during the lifetime of one ruler. Hence the rules of inheritance. My complaint about the Britist RF is that they do not have a foundation to keept the jewels in the royal family, thus the recent obsenity of the sale of the Paltimore tiara of Princess Margaret. I repeat that these are not people in an ordiary or usual situation. Cheers.

One of course remeber that these are not just people in an ordinary situation. If the normal rules of inheritance were to apply soon the throne would probably loose a substantial part of the jewels to be placed at the use of the reigning monarch as head of state. Most countries except possibly czarist Russia or some of the Indian princelinigs were never in a postition to buy say a half dozen or so tiaras during the lifetime of one ruler. Hence the rules of inheritance. My complaint about the Britist RF is that they do not have a foundation to keept the jewels in the royal family, thus the recent obsenity of the sale of the Paltimore tiara of Princess Margaret. I repeat that these are not people in an ordiary or usual situation. Cheers.

Thomas, I completely agree with you--but I have to confess I'm not nearly as upset about the loss of the Poltimore as I am over the loss of one of Queen Mary's rivieres (I spelt it wrong--big diamond necklace) from the Princess Margaret auction. HORRIBLE to see something of Queen Mary's go like that.

__________________Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill

I agree with Thomas Parkman, however the Poltimore IMO is a good example of jewelery that was bought specifically for the younger daughter for her personal ownership and thus went over to her heirs instead of back to the crown so that indeed a "crown" piece would not be lost forever.(even if it does not belong to the crown jewels or the trust)
I liked the Poltimore too, but it was not a family heirloom and obviously the family thought so too and was able to part from it. The more valuable piece in terms of family heritage and personal value would be the lotus flower tiara, which came from the Queen mother and which Countess Linley wore for her wedding. And that at least still now was kept.

IMO, I could imagine some problems with inheriting valuables not only jewels but paintings, antiques, furniture, mementos etc. But then doesn't that to some extent apply to all families simply in different dimensions?

Little Star, the indian claim is quite interesting, as it falls into line with the demand of so many countries to give back valuable cultural heritages, such as egyptian art that has been requested back to Cairo from Berlin and London and Paris, so far it has not been returned. There is a lot of art and artifacts out there that should come home to their country or people, however it is still in the possession of the country or people that once bought it or excavated it or simply looted it in wars.

I can recall reading an article several eyars ago, in which an Indian prince (or his escendants) was planning on suing Queen Elizabeth II for some of the British Crown Jewels, basically saying that they had been forcibly removed from India.

It would be very difficult for this Indian Prince or his descendants to succeed in suing the British Royal Family. The British Royal Family will prove that the jewels in question were actually presents from the family of this Prince to the British monarch.

__________________"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"

It would be very difficult for this Indian Prince or his descendants to succeed in suing the British Royal Family. The British Royal Family will prove that the jewels in question were actually presents from the family of this Prince to the British monarch.

i might be difficult, but IMO the jewels belong back to India...

__________________

__________________If you have much, give of your wealth; If you have little, give of your heart-arab proverb